Posted
by
kdawson
on Monday July 13, 2009 @09:05PM
from the mister-wizard-reincarnated dept.

An anonymous reader writes "As a kid I was (and still am) heavily influenced by Carl Sagan, and a little later by Stephen Hawking. Now as I have started a family with two kids, currently age 5 and 2, I am wondering who out there is popularizing science. Currently, my wife and I can get the kids excited about the world around them, but I'd like to find someone inspiring from outside the family as they get older. Sure, we'll always have 'Cosmos,' but are there any contemporaries who are trying to bring science into the public view in such a fun and intriguing way? Someone the kids can look up to and be inspired by? Where is the next Science Hero?"

Michio Kaku, physics professor, public speaker, writer and very entertaining to watch. I picked up his book, Hyperspace, while I was still in high school and later saw him a few times on Tech TV's Big Thinkers before G4 killed the network.

He tried his damnedest [lovearth.org] to kill the Cassini/Huygens mission that has given us knowledge about Saturn and Titan second only to the Voyager program. ("OMG teh evil Plutonium is going to be magically smushed up n an asplosion and kill us all!")

Never mind that the risks were virtually nonexistent, even if you didn't bother to weigh them against the knowledge we stood to gain. He's no different from the tin-foil hat crowd who tried to shut down the LHC with lawsuits because we might all get swallowed by a black hole.

Michio Kaku has little credibility in my book, because I have no idea whose side he's on... science's, or woo-woo Earth First nutcases.

The link I posted would be amusing if it weren't so dumb. Kaku spends paragraphs explaining in detail how the scientists and engineers designing RTG-equipped missions were a bunch of reckless morons, and how a launch accident with an RTG would bring a catastrophic civil disaster on the scale of those depicted in zombie movies. Then, at the height of the wharrgarbl, he tosses in the point that such world-ending accidents had already occurred several times. Um, OK, I guess the RTG encapsulation wasn't so flawed after all, seeing as how we're mostly still here.

As I recall, after President Clinton irresponsibly failed to step in and abort the Cassini launch, Kaku turned his attention and that of his PR agent towards warning us of the OMGWTFBBQ scenarios that would no doubt follow the probe's gravitational-boost flyby of Earth.

He may have done some good work in the past but this sort of lameness needs to be seen as a career-limiting move for a professional scientist. I'm all in favor of being really, really careful with radioactive stuff, but the fact is, it's not dignified for a PhD physicist to go full retard. What will the creationists think?

Going back on topic here, what you really want is a way to get them into science. Kids are already curious and easily amused, so you've already won half the battle. Just get them science toys, videos, and equipment, and take trips to aquariums, science museums, and planetariums. I remember my first microscope. I was eight and I wouldn't put the damn thing down. You'd be surprised how much people get inspired by the sheer beauty of science. And if you really want to geekify them, get them Lego Mindstorms. A science hero to look up to usually comes after they start learning more and see who discovered what.

I got the privilege of appearing on stage with Mr Wizard way back in gradeschool. Now there's someone that will be missed. He got us hooked on science in like 4th grade. That's what we need, not more people to fascinate us in college, we need to build interest in science in our youth much much earlier.

What I like most about Neil DeGrasse Tyson is how he's so deeply passionate about science, the scientific process, and the very philosophy of inquiry into the nature of the universe. He is able to evangelize science, and bring that often overlooked but much needed emotion to the conversation about what could otherwise be very dry and boring subjects.

Now if you can watch this and not be moved in some way, then I'm sorry, but it is my humble opinion that you are broken.
This passion is a quality that almost every good preacher, salesman, or spokesman knows and yet so many science teachers can't seem to figure out: You need to engage your audience passionately, and make them feel the importance of what you're saying, not simply explain it to them.

Ignorance is bliss? He was dead on about Pluto, people got all emotional about a LARGE HUNK OF ICE. Would you rather scientists just ignore stuff like that and play up to popular opinion? He was smirking because he knows how stupid the 'debate' is. I liked it even better when he kind of put what Branson does into perspective and how the two of them really arent relational in anyway. LEO is a joke compared to what Tyson thinks about in terms of space travel. Im not disparaging Sir Richard Branson or the work he does in ANY WAY, but it was a good perspective.

I dislike that Neil deGrasse guy, he was quite the smirking "I'm smart and you're not" during that whole Pluto isn't a planet anymore crap. I'm with Michio Kaku as my favorite science enthusiast and speaker. He's smart, he's enthused and he didn't go around on the Tonight Show smirking about how Pluto isn't a planet. I'm also looking to punch whoever it was that decided Brontosaurus wasn't a proper name for the Brontosaurus too. (shakes fist in fury)

You're a little late on that one. The peer-reviewed paper that showed that the "brontosaurus" was really an apatosaur was published in 1903.

I'm a Michio Kaku fan, too and have been since I read his book Hyperspace 15 years ago.

Perhaps (I hope) the parent meant reconciling rather than 'combining'. Combining or mixing science with religion has often produced - for centuries - very scary results. But many eminent scientists have managed to reconcile their faith with their job. Einstein, for example. I sure you'd agree that he was capable of 'thought'...

What does that matter? For the dominant part of human history we've been short-sighted, slave-trading, murdering intolerant bastards. I'm of the opinion that science has mitigated that behavior and religion exacerbated it. It's not coincidence that even religions which teach peace and tolerance get abused to goad people into commiting genocide and murder. As the most salient contemporary example, Jesus was a total hippy pacifist, but the christians

Religion and Science are 100% incompatible. Religion = "I Believe", Science = "I can show/demonstrate/repeat". These two ways of looking at the world are not, and never will be, compatible. Those who "combine" the two really are saying, "I believe this or that, but, I can't completely ignore this incontrovertible evidence over here, but, for anything else, I'll just BELIEVE!" Horse-Puckey!

I spent 18 years attending an evangelical church before figuring out all by myself that at best it's a complete corruption of the movement that the figure known as Jesus began, at worst just a slowly dying culture. I certainly was not alone though and thousands of people do it every day.

The stereotype that many "atheists" describe for quite a few religious people is correct. The sad thing is though in *them* (people such as the grandparent) I see exactly the same type of mindless, blathering, "*I* know the one truth and if you don't see it your crazy", HIGHLY ignorant, paint the opposition as evil whackos ranting and mindset that I used to see in the more fevered members of the church.

Different side of the same bent coin.

If they were born into the church they'd probably be the very people that they rant and rave about - the fanatics.

The rest of us, the moderate religious, agnostic and atheists just get on with it and don't particularly care for holy wars from anyone no matter what they believe or don't believe.

? Science and religion ARE incompatible. Science investigates the real world, while religion 'investigates' mostly itself - religion is not linked with reality.

Perhaps you are confusing some of the definitions of compatibility with synergy because you have just pointed out one of the only ways religion and science can be compatible and claimed it as evidence of the opposite. The fact that they, at their core, are concerned with entirely different things is exactly why they can coexist harmoniously. It's just when religion tries to muscle in on the physical world that incompatibility comes about.

"A great deal of science and many scientists engage in unfounded theorising and even many "heros" (wtf) of science hold ridiculous unfounded theories on the mechanics and purpose of life and the universe that are so far removed from the "real world" one could only call them immature religious ideas."

So? Humans are not infallible, they can hold several conflicting ideas perfectly fine.

Science method itself, however, works just fine even though humans can be corrupted. That's because science has an anchor in

Well... yes and no. One way in which religion and science can co-exist is if you believe in the god of the gaps [wikipedia.org]. What can adequately be explained by your empirical model of the world is the domain of science and nature. Everything else, "a wizard did it". To our earliest ancestors, everything was supernatural because their understanding of nature was incredibly limited. To cavemen, fire was understood (to a degree) but thunder and lightning were the province of the gods. Today, most of our world is understo

Science is no more incompatible with say, Christianity, than Buddhism is with Judaism. Or cars are with submarines.People are incompatible. There is no scientific proof (that I know of) that proves there is a god or that there is no god. There is no reason that I cannot believe in evolution and still believe in a god, or believe that we have souls.

Yes, it is a belief, it is not the proof/fact of evolution, it is STILL referred to as the Theory of Evolution. Not getting into that debate, even though a theory

Yes, it is a belief, it is not the proof/fact of evolution, it is STILL referred to as the Theory of Evolution. Not getting into that debate, even though a theory does have a lot of evidence, unless it's provable it's still a theory

No wonder you are getting all your claims wrong. You don't even understand how science works. In science, a theory is the highest order. It's the goal of science. It's what makes science useful. There is no higher level than a scientific theory. You need to educate yourself [notjustatheory.com].

It is ENTIRELY possible to believe in a creator and still accept the true wonder of the universe. Religion does not mean the same thing as faith. Organized religion as set forth by the religions 'clergy', for the most part is tailored to control the populace. People LIKE to be controlled, its comforting to some. Why have police when you can force your people to police themselves through guilt?

Einstein's belief in God is what lead him to make his stupid "God doesn't play dice" comment. If one of the greatest scientific minds ever to exist can be crippled by religion, then I have good evidence science and religion are incompatible.

No, it was an outright refusal to accept quantum physics as a anything but a curiosity - an interesting but ultimately fruitless dead end. Unto the day he died Einstein refused to accept that the quantum physics explanation of the sub atomic world was any more science than aether. He even coined the term "sooky action at a distance" before it was observed in an attempt to derride the ridiculousness of that particular consequence of the quantum model. While his extrapolation on the idea of entanglement and quantum teleportation were meant to demonstrate how ridiculous quantum theory was, it ended up being the basis for experiments that proved the theory valid.
It was not a simple "lament" as Einstein never considered the non-quantum past of physics to be "the past." He was quite blinded by this refusal.

It's people like you who put apologetics in a bad light. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, and the case has been so clearly settled that there are only a few excuses for you to make this sort of error:

You are repeating what other apologetics have said without doing any due diligence to confirm that the statements were in any way accurate. This is a big problem, because religious folks pretty much listen to these authorities who don't really have any grounds for their veracity.

You are trying to deceive people.

You don't think critically. You somehow can completely dismiss any evidence against your case and cherry pick evidence for your case, no matter how large the imbalance of evidence. (e.g. evolution)

Seriously, this gnostic-atheist vs. theist shitstorm is getting out of hand. Me, I'm more of a Theological noncognitivist [wikipedia.org] or ignostic [wikipedia.org] myself -- though even these labels are restrictive, since sometimes I play with panpsychist/pantheist/hylozoist ideas (albeit not seriously, since they make no testable predictions). Whatever, this post isn't supposed to be about me; the point is just that we're not stuck with a binary choice here.

He meant this in that his idea of God was so far from anything that cared about or interacted with humanity that it was less a god than it was the living Universe. When he says that it is not personal he means that it does not relate to people, nor interact with people directly and with intent, nor hold them in any more esteem than you hold the bacteria that line your intestine nor the individual cells of your skin.

In his mind, it is just as right to call a man who acknowledges this impersonal and dis

BZZT. False. Science rests on the belief that order and rationality exist in the universe.

You got the order wrong... Science has nothing to do with faith. It is about choosing the absence of faith. It matters not how strong your faith in an ordered universe is if there exists data that it is not so; as soon as out hypothesis is falsified, we must analyse it with a view to discarding it, no matter how much we want it to be true. If you have faith in science then it has become as dangerous as every other crackpot dogma. Simply, a superior approach to explaining observations rationally to our existing scientific method has yet to be discovered, our current hypothesis remains sound.

Science is about being willing to be wrong (well, it used to be... these days it is about getting published in A journals, sadly). It is about suggesting other than absolutes, about being willing to discard opinions and hypothesis as soon as there exists evidence which falsifies them. The instant your hovering apple is observed, repeated and verified; then we must consider changing or completely discarding the currently accepted hypothesis; if we had faith in this hypothesis, we could not.

To be clear, I have no problem with people having belief's in areas where it is not feasible to prove or disprove or where a falsifiable hypothesis cannot be constructed; I *believe* that is their right and freedom. Belief is not science and vice versa, although they can overlap. Faith is different, it is mutually exclusive, it allows us to justify ignoring data to retain flawed judgements. Faith is where idiots with explosives strapped to them and creationists come from.

**start rantIt is one thing to personally believe in the existence of a god, it is another thing to have faith that an anthropocentric supreme being shat out the universe in a 6 day marathon and turned people into salt and gave immaculate birth to a magical resurrection fairy so strongly that no evidence of the human tendancy to make up stories and write them down and speak falsehoods to maintain power will dissuade you from it.

Faith is the most dangerous thing a human can have, because it involves blinding ourselves to other views and evidence.**end rant

I don't have faith in an ordered universe, for all I know there may be a deranged supreme being fiddling with everything we do for their own jollies; but I cannot offer data which supports such a hypothesis nor form an exclusive null hypothesis. However, the hypothesis that the universe is amenable to observation and measurement is supported by reams of data showing repeatable results from controlled methodologies.

dude did you even read your parent? Whatever you called "faith" in science is, it's NOT! It's hypothesis and the difference is, if somebody found a hovering apple and it's repeatable, or falsifiable, your "faith" in gravity and or relativity CAN be discarded. Hence, science isn't based on faith..Religion is real faith, because Adam ate the apple. It's not hypothesis, it's absolute faith. Nobody saw him eat it and it's not repeatable or falsifiable. Jesus resurrected. Same deal. Absolute, unchangeable, and we won't lose our Easter holidays! Get it?

There is no way that you can be absolutely sure that every atom always decays at the same rate. You need faith for a good chunk of science in 2009.

And yet, if somebody showed that the speed of decay changed over time and that observation could be repeated, then the whole building of knowledge done on top of it would shift and change to adjust to the discovery that a basic law of physics is actually not what we thought.

That's the core difference between Science and Religion - in Religion, faith is supposed to absolute and unshakable, no proof required, no falsifying possible. In Science there is no faith - at best you have a "I'll go with this until it's proven wrong" posture - a mental artifact of which, in some people's minds, could be confused with "faith". (If you're approaching any Scientific theory, no matter how basic in a faith-like way, you're doing it wrong)

As with everything, in Science to do any work you have to assume (until proven otherwise) that some basic laws are as we think they are. If you start challenging everything all the time then you end up in the domain of Philosophy (the father of Science) where you ultimately challenge that reality is as we perceive, down to challenging one's own existence.[Reality as we perceive is something we believe are aware of through our senses. However, it's perfectly possible that "true" reality is something like the Matrix (we all live in an illusion) or even further, that nothing is as we perceive it and we ourselves are but a dream of an unfathomable alien conscience. Consider that there hasn't been much "work done" in solving that specific question since "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am", Descartes, 17th century)]

Can you elaborate why the GP is wrong, rather than engage in name calling? What he is essentially saying is that religion is all about blind faith in certain propositions (God exists, he created the universe, he created humans in his image etc etc) even in the face of complete absence of evidence, actually even in the face of very strong evidence contradicting those propositions (such as the evidence for evolution). On the other hand, science is about finding out about the world through scientific method (somewhat inaccurately summarized as show/demonstrate/repeat, but I get the point). Why is that a "dumb-ass comment" and why does it prevent any "dialog from happening"? It's a simple and obviously truthful statement and I am really curious why you, as well as couple of other posters, appear to be offended by it?

Science has not provided a robust explanation for the origin of the universe.

But it doesn't claim that it has, and no faith is needed, because the Universe exists.

It cannot explain the four forces.

Explain? It certainly describes the four fources, very accurately. And no faith is needed, because the four forces exist.

It cannot explain time.

Again, what do you mean by "explain"? It certainly describes time, and its interrelation with space, in ways that religion never even guessed at. And no faith is needed, because time exists.

All of those are taken as given without explanation or identifiable cause.

What, are you asserting that the Universe, the four forces, and time don't exist?

For all that some people act smug about being enlightened and scientific, the fact of the matter is, their beliefs are as faith based as the beliefs of the unsophisticated religious types they are mocking.

Nope, sorry, wrong, wrong, completely and irredeemably wrong.

There is no faith involved at any point. There is a method. The scientific method, sometimes described as methodological naturalism. You don't have to believe in metaphsyical naturalism. You don't need to believe in science at all. You just need to follow the method, and you get results.

Why don't you disagree with what I wrote instead of your moronic interpretation of what I wrote?

You say that science "doesn't claim that it has" explained the origin of the universe. That is my exact point. Science and Religion are not "100% incompatible" as the source post of this sub-thread claims.

So your point is that science doesn't explain what it doesn't claim to explain, but that somehow this means that religion automatically does explain it? Citation needed.

The very bedrock of science is nothing but pure faith.

Wrong. The very bedrock of science is that in order for claims to be verifiable, they must be observable and repeatable under controlled conditions so as to eliminate any need for faith.

Science does not preclude this statement:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Science makes no claims on this statement other than that beyond very poorly defined terms (define which god you mean here for a start, and what propert

Religions are falsifiable (science is the un-falsifiable thing: it is a tool, not a proposition. How do you falsify a hammer? How do you falsify science?). Any decent religious system has ideas of the type, if you do X, then Y will happen. Let's investigate a bit, and see what some religions say:

Buddhism: if you follow the eight-fold path, your suffering will end. Extremely testable. If you follow the eight-fold path, and you are still suffering, then man, they led you astray.Tantric yoga: do these e

The main difference between science and religion is not that one is true and the other is false. It's that one is falsifiable and the other is not.

To put it more bluntly, when the scientist tells you water is hydrogen and oxygen and you say "prove it," there's an experiment to do just that. And for as many claims that science makes that you ask for proof of, it will be provided, until you're absolutely sick of it. There's a great book called a Short History of Nearly Everything that takes the great claims of science you learn in school and walks you back to how they were discovered and who did the work.

"God wants us to learn these things, that is why we are here"If only more people believed in that same God.. or at least that said same God wants these same things, there'd be a whole lot less problems.

However, I take issue even with that statement, due to the second half. It seems like it is meant to be an answer to the question "Why are we here?"

To illustrate why I take issue with that.. I saw a cute little German book about gemstones earlier today. I opened it up somewhere in the middle, only to find references to where the gemstone is mentioned in the bible and whatnot (something about 12 breastplate stones? my memory of The Bible is entirely too vague to recall the details). So I flipped to the first page of text and it had this question and answer (from iffy memory from a translation from German):

Q. Why do gemstones exist?A. God put them on the Earth for mankind to admire them.

That answer seemed silly to me (I'm agnostic-ish) at first... it doesn't answer the question of why they exist, it answers the question 'why did God put them on Earth', which wasn't asked. But then I realized that I wouldn't ever ask the original question anyway. I would ask what gemstones are made of, how they are formed, chemical composition, color ranges, any special characteristics (asterism? chatoyance?) etc. and simply admire the photos in the book taking them for what they are.. pretty sparklies. I wouldn't ask -why- a gemstone exists any more than I would ask why a grain of sand exists.

Similarly, no scientist would ask -why- we are here any more than -why- a gemstone exists; that's material best left to philosophers and, indeed, theologians.

When you say that "there is a lot of science that cannot be shown/demonstrated/repeated", you're not really talking about science - although there are certainly elements that we can't just 'show' (such as stating that a certain star contains much iron though we're not able to just scoop some up and show you), we can certainly scientifically infer them with high probability (spectral lines etc.) and more plausibility ("'cos God made it so").Now if you move into the realm of where scientists say "we don't know (yet)", that's where you can certainly have room for "God did it"-type arguments. I'm not a big fan of those, but quite likely there's no way that we'll ever determine what caused the Big Bang event and saying "God did it" makes perfectly good sense to me - though it certainly doesn't mean I think we shouldn't try and figure it out anyway... which is where I'm glad your University taught you "God wants us to learn these things", even if I disagree with the second half.

If you are looking for a science model for your children, find someone who as managed to integrate their belief in God with science.

Here's my ultra-short version:

1)The Bible uses parables to instill useful values. It is largely NOT literal. Children and simple adults believe it literally because they lack the capacity to grasp the deeper lessons present. This is okay, because the alternative methods of instilling the same useful values to a wide variety of people have no solid track record.

I don't understand the thinking behind several parts of your last paragraph - but I am deeply interested in why you think they are so:

- If god is omnipotent / all powerful etc - why do you need to tell others about him? Can he not do this himself if he felt it was the thing to do?
- If god is generous rewarding etc. - why is there evil in the world>=? Why does he allow situations to occur that turn good people into bad people? (trauma, post-traumatic stress etc.)
- Why heaven - why not just make the real world nice.
- Why do you believe you know the mind of god? (sorry if I read that wrong - but from your post you seem convinced you do). You may believe that god cannot be mistaken - but do you believe that you cannot be mistaken for thinking you know his mind?

At least they GET data rather than just basing their opinions what they're fed. Honestly, when was the last time you did a thorough scientific experiment in your personal life? I think that personal science involves questioning the status quo, not accepting everything at face value, and figuring out how to answer your questions. Simply because your methods wouldn't stand up to rigorous testing doesn't mean that you can't use it to make good decisions. Ultimately I think that is the role of science in people

At least they GET data rather than just basing their opinions what they're fed. Honestly, when was the last time you did a thorough scientific experiment in your personal life?

I gather scientific data every time I get in the car.My hypothesis: I won't get pulled over for speedingConclusion: FalseNote: the hypothesis has been rigorously tested and the conclusion has been confirmed multiple times.

At least they GET data rather than just basing their opinions what they're fed... personal science involves questioning the status quo, not accepting everything at face value, and figuring out how to answer your questions. Simply because your methods wouldn't stand up to rigorous testing doesn't mean that you can't use it to make good decisions. Ultimately I think that is the role of science in peoples lives, to answer questions and aid in decisions... While I don't always agree with the mythbuster's methods, at least they don't sit around waiting for the talking heads to hand down the truth from on high. The scientific spirit of the program is strong if the flesh is sometimes weak.

You have just accurately described the higher, philosophical purpose of science. Well done.

I feel you have also accurately summarized why MythBusters is so popular - it captures the scientific spirit without diluting it in rigor, while catering to an audience that is constantly seeking for its own answers and the associated reasons behind them. In a popular culture that provides fewer clear messages as information becomes more partisan, the individual reacts naturally in their own self interest by becoming more individual in the acquisition of their own information. MythBusters might be the lowest common denominator of this process among the 'technically minded', but how the hell are you going to accurately test 'if a playing card can actually kill a human being?'. Seriously.

In Australian (specifically the state of Queensland) high schools, they like to teach kids to think "scientifically", and "design their own experiments", then write a 60 page report, plus a log book, and sometimes a poster. The kids just don't have the scientific maturity to design a correct experiment (i.e. statistically significant), but they do a bang-up job on the report. All neat, good grammar, pretty graphs and diagrams.

They don't enjoy it much (a 60 page report is honors thesis territory) and they aren't really learning any more science than if they watched Mythbusters, but at least they are able to generate a lot of paper for their teachers to mark.

A word of warning - never let education academics with no teaching or real world experience take control of the education system.

It still generates interest and gets kids thinking so Mythbusters gets a thumbs up from me but let's not pretend like they're rigorous. I wish they'd do more end of the show disclaimers ; things they did right/wrong, etc. Science isn't science if you're not considering all the faults and sources of error in your experiments.

I think you've horribly missed the point. The goal isn't to find a good way to teach kids science... get a textbook for that. The goal is to find a way to get kids interested in science, and Mythbusters can do that very nicely. Once their interest is captured, then teach them how it actually works.

Because that's the part he refused to believe; that UFOs are full of little green men who enjoy slicing up cows and sticking thermometers up lonely farmers rears, but won't so much as say hello to anyone who's credible. He's sure they're out THERE. But if they'd bothered to come HERE, surely they'd let us know. But they haven't done so, so they haven't been here. They didn't build the pyramids, they didn't crash in Roswell, and they didn't put an

"But there's another explanation that is consistent with everything else we know, and that's that it's a big cosmos." The only things that would indicate our presence to them are our radio, TV, and other broadcasts; but these have not yet even reached a distance where it is likely that another civilization has hear them! "From their point of view, all nearby planetary systems might seem equally attractive for exploration." It's simply a matter of infinitesimal probability.

So you see, he did not say that it is impossible; that was a product of your own mind.

If only there was a "Science Man" cartoon. Fighting the delusional forces of creationism. Curb stomping his nemesis Dr Dino and able to calculate PI to 30 digits. All while working at the LHC in his secret janitor identity.

You've got years before they give a rat's ass about Cosmos or David Attenborough wildlife documentaries. It's OK, they're little kids.

Rubbish. Show the kids David Attenborough wildlife documentaries from the get-go. Children are very good at filtering what they understand and what they don't from material aimed at adults. Elmo and Curious George are entertainment, maybe even "edutainment", but it's not going to fill them with the awe, wonder and curiosity of the natural world that drives a scientist.

Talk to children like adults when you're discussing adult topics - like science. They'll thank you for it. Something that annoyed me no end g

Science should be practical. It's good when it helps people. Any individual scientist who has done science to help people is worth looking up to. That also goes for anyone else of any profession.

You're asking for celebrities. Celebrities are not famous for helping people, they're famous for appearing on TV. Do you really think it's wise to teach your kids to look up to whoever the TV producers want to put on TV? Are TV producers wise?

"Famous" isn't the same as "celebrity". People can be famous for good reasons, not just frivolous ones.

And I agree that any individual scientist who does good work is worth looking up to, but if we never hear about them, how do we do that?

You know what kids do hear about? Athletes. And Paris Hilton. If we don't exalt scientists as being valued, those values don't get transmitted to the next generation. We were in the process of reimporting that valu

Each science has its own heroes in the current day. If you really want to establish a science hero for your kids, choose which science you want to teach them about first. Much as Einstein isn't a great hero to evolutionary biologists, Darwin isn't a great hero to modern physicists. You could, of course, try to cover a wide variety of scientific disciplines (and their respective heroes) in a short amount of time, but you would probably do better to start with more approachable subjects and bring up the heroes of those.

Dr. Tim Flannery [wikipedia.org] is someone whose work I have introduced all of my young relatives too. He may not be as well recognised outside of Australian and I can honestly say I don't always share his viewpoint; but he conveys the points well and with great passion.

Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki [wikipedia.org] has been doing a scientifically credible, entertaining and honest version of what the mythbuster's do on radio in Australia for donkeys years and is pure gold when it comes to making science fun and accessible.

I know he's not a scientist per se, but David Attenborough had a huge influence on me as a child, along with BBC nature as a whole. As a child I'd watch them over and over and that interest passed over to the other sciences as a whole. He's the perfect person to get your kids into science as a whole. (I teach physics now).

Lego for the fine motor skills and figuring out how to make something cool

Find a sport your kid is into. I can't stand baseball and I like soccer (playing at least), I don't know if it's genetic or what, but my son is much the same. Sports are cool because of things like gravity and all his friends.

Seriously. His show good eats does a wonderful job of investigating the science behind the food. He does so in such a way that makes you want to know more, which renders his detractor's accuracy claims moot. His show has helped me inspire my 5 year old daughter to question how things work the way they do. What better hero could you ask for?

If we were half as creative in our lectures, science classes would be much more popular (and make more sense to more people).

It is too bad that with very few exceptions, the "science" people most folks are aware of are actually cooks, special effects artists or politicians. It would be nice if more scientists were just known for good science.

I actually like watching Dr. Michio Kaku on the science channel's SCI-Q. He seems to take abstract topics (Quantum Mechanics, String Theory) or stuff out of science-fiction (like time travel) and answer them in a easy to understand (but not Sesame Street) level. Here's 10 example questions from the show's website: http://science.discovery.com/questions/michio-kaku/michio-kaku.html [discovery.com]

There are a lot of people who work in science education and public outreach. Staff at museums and planetaria, for example. Outreach people from research facilities (here on Mauna Kea, just about every observatory has official outreach people). And people who just think what they do is so fun and cool they want to share it with people.

I'm fortunate enough to work in astronomy, and I love bringing my daughter up to the visitor station for stargazing or hiking, or video-chatting with her while operating or observing. I also volunteer at the visitor station, lead tours of the summit, and generally "reach out" to anyone who's interested. I don't get any observing time on the 8-meter I operate, but I just got offered some time on a 2-meter and am going to work with my daughter, my nephew and my neighbors' kids to come up with a project.

These are 8-14 year olds, so they can probably weigh in on whether we should look at asteroids, kuiper belt objects, supernovae, black holes, or whatever. But I started in the field when my daughter was 5, and even though the first few years she was mostly just wanting to look at stuff in the sky, and not caring so much about what it actually was, she's grown up knowing that her dad gets to do really cool stuff, instead of just sitting in a cubicle. Probably also doesn't hurt that she has autographed photos of a couple NASA astronauts she's met.:)

There are a lot of science outreach activities in our town, like AstroDay [astroday.net] and Onizuka Science Day and robotics competitions and all that... plus public talks, the world's first 3-D planetarium, and... okay, okay, the whole farkin' island is one giant playground for any kid (or adult) who's into natural sciences at all.

Find your local science museums or science centers or observatories or planetaria or whatever, find out who handles the local robotics competition, etc. Plenty of unknown heroes out there.

Oh, one word of advice, though: don't expect the kids to go for your favorite science. I may be an astro-geek, and her mom's a social scientist, but my daughter tends more toward chemistry.

Get them to follow F1. The competitive nature and the inherent coolness of racing cars will get them hooked. The breadth in sciences covered by the sport is pretty cool ranging from the biology of weight loss from dehydration of the drivers to the electronics behind precision timing. It is a breathtakingly awesome sport even when none of the competitors are performing well.

P.S. Be very careful to make sure they do not start watching any other programming on SpeedTV!

gotta go with Forrest M. Mims III. I know there are some people out there rolling there eyes because of his stance on intelligent design, but you are missing the point. This is the guy who wrote all the books about electronics radio shack used to sell. Those books are still available, although the price is a little higher now that the shack doesn't stock them. I just saw them at Fry's though, so I know they are readily available. I started reading those books and tinkering with electronics in the 4th grade. It gave me a lifelong love of electronics and science. I still rely on the stuff I learned from those books twenty years later. Check out his website. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, his inventions and experiments are exactly the kind of stuff I would want my kids to do.

Seeing as everyone else has Adam Savage, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins pretty well covered, and you already know about Carl Sagan and presumably Richard Feynman and J. Bronowski, I should probably add Brian Cox to the list.

He's a particle physicist at CERN, and has an unrealistic level of enthusiasm for absolutely everything. It seems a good bet that the physicist in Sunshine was based on him, especially considering that he was the science consultant for the film. He's in a whole bunch of documentaries enthusing about how great the latest scientific discoveries are.

I'd have to go with Brian Cox as well; his enthusiasm really comes across in the BBC documentaries he has fronted. Plus he was a Rock Star before getting his PhD (OK, keyboard player for one-hit wonders D:Ream, but still...). Plus he's married to a TV Sports presenter. Oh, and for anything maths related, Marcus du Sautoy has many of the same 'enthusiasm combined with real knowledge' qualities.

(And now I need to ramble on for ages because Slashdot's software claims I have too few characters per line... A curious requirement. Just ignore this paragraph, it contains absolutely no meaningful information at all. Seriously, though, check out the above YouTube clips if nothing else. Really, Cosmos and A Short History of Nearly Everything should be given to everyone at birth...)

No one had the time to mention Kari or Grant from the Mythbusters, but they had time for a 200 post off topic flamewar about religion and science? Yes not exactly post graduate education there, but the question was about "excited" and "heros". Whats not to like about Kari and Grant?

There's a cool show on the History channel called "The Universe". They have very intelligent and interesting people talking about science while entertaining with mind-blowing cgi graphics. Check it out.

I don't think the submitter was asking for a Sunday school answers to a request for science instruction. While it is perfectly acceptable to use God to fill the holes in knowledge for the time being (if a society must because it has a sever phobia of areas of uncertainty and doubt), it is not acceptable for a society to refuse to acknowledge scientific findings, or refuse the future possibility of what science may find simply because it has already answered that particular question with the stock "The Creator did it."

Today's kids are being taught that feelings are more important than logic, that 'social justice' is more important than the actual kind, that there's no difference between winning and losing, and that causality is just a conceit of the rich. They'll grow up and become government housing administrators, or city employees, or socialized/unionized construction workers. They'll grow up with a hatred of science, of objectivity, and of individuality, it will all be replaced by compassion, empathy and team spirit.

Sorry for your loss.

That is the complaint of every generation to the succeeding. I am growing up now, one of today's kids as you call us. Of my friends from high school, most of them are studying hard sciences. I go to a small liberal arts college and we have a larger grant for our sciences and more people interested in those subjects than any other department in the school. I don't see my peers growing up to be any of the things you mentioned.
Just sayin'.

Lemme guess, There Is No Alternative to right-wing objectivism? Because everyone should be Rugged Individualists Working for Science for Profit so that the Free Market might Solve All Problems. Actually attempting to care about others makes us Dirty Pinko Commies.